Is extremist climate activism justified?

Climate change is a highly urgent and for many a life-threatening issue. The consequences of environmental degradation include the destruction of habitats for many species such as rainforests and coral reefs, and an increase in deadly natural disasters which claim many lives every year. 

At the same time, most climate scientists agree that if we continue emitting the way we currently do, we won’t have many years before we reach irreversible damage to the planet. This creates an urgent need for policies that address climate change. Some groups of climate activists believe that more extreme tactics like civil disobedience and destruction of private property is worth it to raise awareness about this urgency. 

The idea is that the disturbance and destruction created by these protests are minuscule compared to the destruction that climate change will cause if we do not act. The purpose of such a protest is to gain as much attention and publicity around the issue as possible so it stays in people’s minds. 

This is used to justify the large-scale criticism that such extremist activism often garners in the media and in larger public debates. 

It should be mentioned that the climate change movement is not the first social justice movement to use extreme tactics or civil disobedience to achieve their goals. This has been done several times in history with varying intensity and varying success. Many times big social issues had both more extremist and more moderate fractions which have worked towards the same goal.

Examples of this include the civil rights movement in the US where anti-violent protests like the March on Washington under MLK Junior. Supporters of more extremist climate activism would argue that this historical precedence justifies their current efforts.

There are, however, also historical examples of entirely peaceful movements that managed to spur large-scale change. The anti-colonialism movement in India was famously non-violent. However, they did have mass protests and movement leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi did engage in more severe, non-violent forms of protest such as high-profile hunger strikes.

While large-scale extreme climate activism will get headlines in the news and thus attention around the climate change movement, more moderate climate activists would argue that this negative publicity is not worth it. In their view, it is hurting the climate movement because negative backlash hurts buy-in. 

The logic here is that while most people recognize climate change and are willing to support greener alternatives, most people are not extremists around this view. If the climate change movement gets too heavily associated with extremist views and activism, it will likely alienate a lot of moderate supporters. The average voter might start recycling if educated about climate change gently, or even show up to marches such as Fridays for Future but they won't block roads or destroy private or public property to spread these views. 

People who might already be skeptical of the climate change movements because they feel it imposes too many restrictions on their lives might have these feelings directly confirmed if their daily commute is stopped by climate activists blocking the road, or if they see public monuments defaced by climate protesters. This directly builds opposition to the climate movement.

Lastly, it might also make it harder for more moderate climate movements to gain legitimacy if their cause becomes associated with extremist actions. More legitimate organizations or even governments might not want to work with them because they fear it looks like giving in to extremism. 

On the other hand, more people might buy into the more moderate climate movements or become supporters of the green transition because they realize the urgency of the issue through these dramatic protests. Extremist activism is more likely to make an impression on people which spurs them to act or at least consider the issue. More extreme activism also has potential to legitimize the more moderate parts of the movement that do not use illegal tactics.

This happens firstly because moderate and legal elements of climate activism gain a public perception that is seen as more acceptable and more reasonable, and as such this increases buy-in from citizens who support the cause, but who do not wish to support illegal actions. Secondly, extreme activism is indeed more likely to make impressions on individuals in the first place, and when people become more aware of this urgency, they may also be moved to action.

Civil disobedience theory argues that breaking the law is sometimes justified if it is done nonviolently and to achieve a greater moral good, such as fighting injustice. Extremist climate activists often argue that their actions are a form of civil disobedience, aiming to address the urgent and widespread harm caused by climate change.

They may see their cause as morally superior to the laws they break. An example of this is climate activists blocking roads or defacing public property, who might claim that their actions are necessary to highlight the climate emergency and force governmental change.

Radical environmentalism advocates for fundamental changes to the political, economic, and social systems that contribute to environmental degradation. It often justifies more extreme actions as necessary to protect the Earth.

Extremist climate activists often draw on radical environmentalist ideas, arguing that the scale of the climate crisis requires bold, even disruptive, measures to challenge unsustainable systems. For example, groups like Extinction Rebellion and Earth First! may argue that the current political system is incapable of addressing climate change adequately, justifying more radical approaches to push for change.

Social contract theory is a political philosophy theory that suggests that individuals consent to be governed in exchange for the protection of their rights and welfare. Breaking laws or norms may be justified if the government fails to uphold its part of the contract. Using this theory, extremist climate activists might argue that governments are not fulfilling their responsibility to protect citizens from the harm of climate change, which justifies extreme actions to hold them accountable. I.e. governments are breaking the social contract by not solving climate change so citizens can break it too by disobeying the law.

Some argue that peaceful activism can create widespread support and positive awareness, bringing more people together for change without causing harm as it doesn't alienate any supporters.

Others argue that peaceful protests may not create enough urgency or pressure on governments and corporations to act quickly enough on climate issues. It is necessary to differentiate climate

Supporters would argue that extreme activism can draw attention and raise awareness quickly, pushing climate change to the forefront of public discussion.

However, this might cause a backlash, with some people seeing the movement as too radical or disruptive, which could slow progress as the movement loses the moral high ground in the eyes of the public and those loose supporters. 

It can be argued that the urgency of climate change means the end goal of protecting the planet is more important than how activists achieve it.

But the point stands that the methods used matter because violent or destructive tactics could turn people away and undermine the movement’s moral stance. There are thus key trade-offs that the movement and its supports must consider.

Some argue that Governments should recognize these activists because they are raising awareness about a critical global issue that affects everyone’s future. As long as these movements are non-violent, which the vast majority are, the destruction they may cause is not a reason to dismiss their overall message.

However, others would claim that governments must uphold the laws they make, and thus should punish illegal actions to maintain order and ensure that activism doesn’t harm public safety or the economy.

It can be argued that as climate change poses a real threat to future generations, then people have a moral duty to do whatever it takes, even extreme measures, to stop it. It is not only their lives on the line but the lives of future generations. 

On the contrary, it can be argued that moral responsibility should still involve careful consideration of the consequences, and extreme actions could do more harm than good. A moral duty doesn’t in itself justify large-scale civil disobedience.

Extinction Rebellion

The Website of Extinction Rebellion, a climate activist group that supports and occasionally carries out nonviolent civil disobedience and extremist climate activism in the name of climate justice.

United Nations (2022)

A longer United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute publication about the perceptions of climate change and violent extremism.

Point 1
‍Ecoterrorism can be justified on the grounds of fairness. The environmental movement feels that traditional legal channels and peaceful activism have failed. Large corporations and governments prioritize profits over environmental protection, despite the severe harm caused to ecosystems and communities. In this case, taking extreme measures is a way to level the playing field and hold these powerful entities accountable for their environmental damage.

Counterpoint 1
‍Using violence or destruction, even in the name of environmental protection, raises serious moral and ethical concerns. The ends do not justify the means. Destroying property or causing harm violates ethical principles and undermines the moral high ground of the environmental movement which damages its legitimacy. It risks turning activists into criminals, and violence often leads to unintended consequences, harming innocent people or the environment itself.

—

Point 2
‍Ecoterrorism is an efficient way to disrupt environmentally destructive activities. By Sabotaging polluting industries or blocking harmful projects, climate activists can create immediate change, halting harmful actions that legal efforts often take years to address. It forces industries and governments to take the environmental movement seriously and can pressure them to act faster than traditional activism.

Counterpoint 2
‍While ecoterrorism may create quick results, it also alienates public support, which is crucial for any long-term movement. The use of violence or illegal tactics creates a backlash from less extreme groups. People start viewing the environmental cause as too radical or dangerous. This leads to increased government crackdowns on activism and tougher laws, making it harder for peaceful environmental advocates to operate and achieve their goals.

—

Point 3
‍Throughout history, movements for justice and reform have used extreme or illegal actions when other methods failed, and this has led to significant change. The suffragette movement, civil rights protests, and anti-apartheid activism all involved forms of civil disobedience or direct action. Ecoterrorism is part of this tradition, using radical methods to push forward an urgent cause when peaceful efforts seem ineffective.

Counterpoint 3
‍Engaging in eco-terrorism undermines the hard work of legal and peaceful environmental efforts. These efforts rely on public trust, political negotiation, and gradual policy change. By using extreme measures, eco-terrorists will damage the credibility of the entire environmental movement, making it harder for peaceful advocates to gain support from the public, lawmakers, and courts, thus setting back progress in the long run.